NanoFlash

B

Brandon J. Garcia

Member
I have a basic idea on what nanoflash is.

But I was wondering if you guys, from a DP perspective explain how and why you guys use nanoflash?

If you could also talk about what camera you used it on, that would be great.

My only experience with it was on an EX3. From my understanding it lets you record at a higher bit rate?

thanks for the help.

Brandon
 
It's an external recording device, that can be used with HDMI or HD-SDI sources.

The reasons for using it come down to three, really:
1) For redundancy, to have an onboard camera recording and also an external recording
2) To turn a tape-based camera into a tapeless camera (i.e., using it with a disc-based XDCAM or tape-based VariCam, to turn the package into a memory-recording system)
3) To get higher-quality footage than your native onboard camera codec can provide.

Examples of 3 would be the BBC's requirement for narrative production that specifies that if a camera is using MPEG-2 long-GoP (such as an HDV or XDCAM-EX camcorder), the bitrate must be at least 50mbps. The XDCAM-EX cameras (EX1, EX3, F3) don't have that, they're limited to 35mbps. So using the NanoFlash, you can set it to 50mbps and therefore satisfy the BBC's requirements.

Additionally, the higher-bandwidth modes of the Nano allow for 4:2:2 color sampling, so if you're using a 4:2:0 recording system (such as AVCHD or XDCAM-EX) you can use an external recorder to get 4:2:2 color, which would make for more robust footage for post manipulation or greenscreening.
 
Barry_Green said:
It's an external recording device, that can be used with HDMI or HD-SDI sources.

The reasons for using it come down to three, really:
1) For redundancy, to have an onboard camera recording and also an external recording
2) To turn a tape-based camera into a tapeless camera (i.e., using it with a disc-based XDCAM or tape-based VariCam, to turn the package into a memory-recording system)
3) To get higher-quality footage than your native onboard camera codec can provide.

Examples of 3 would be the BBC's requirement for narrative production that specifies that if a camera is using MPEG-2 long-GoP (such as an HDV or XDCAM-EX camcorder), the bitrate must be at least 50mbps. The XDCAM-EX cameras (EX1, EX3, F3) don't have that, they're limited to 35mbps. So using the NanoFlash, you can set it to 50mbps and therefore satisfy the BBC's requirements.

Additionally, the higher-bandwidth modes of the Nano allow for 4:2:2 color sampling, so if you're using a 4:2:0 recording system (such as AVCHD or XDCAM-EX) you can use an external recorder to get 4:2:2 color, which would make for more robust footage for post manipulation or greenscreening.
Click to expand...

1) Aha. So, when using nano you get duplicate files at a higher bit rate? (just reiterating for my understanding)

and 2) makes sense.

3) gotcha.

this is very informative thank you.
 
Brandon J. Garcia said:
1) Aha. So, when using nano you get duplicate files at a higher bit rate? (just reiterating for my understanding)
Click to expand...
Well, the presumed workflow is that you'd be recording on your camera itself, at whatever your native recording format is. And then simultaneously you'd be recording a second copy to the Nano, at whatever format you chose. You don't actually have to use the Nano for higher quality, you could actually (if you wanted, for some reason) use it for lower quality. You could record 24mbps on your AVCCAM or 35mbps on your XDCAM, and then record an 18mbps version on the Nano, which would last forever in terms of recording time, but wouldn't have nearly the same visual quality. I don't really know why you'd do this, I'm just pointing out that it's an option. Most folks would use the Nano at higher bitrates to take advantage of what it can do.
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, the presumed workflow is that you'd be recording on your camera itself, at whatever your native recording format is. And then simultaneously you'd be recording a second copy to the Nano, at whatever format you chose. You don't actually have to use the Nano for higher quality, you could actually (if you wanted, for some reason) use it for lower quality. You could record 24mbps on your AVCCAM or 35mbps on your XDCAM, and then record an 18mbps version on the Nano, which would last forever in terms of recording time, but wouldn't have nearly the same visual quality. I don't really know why you'd do this, I'm just pointing out that it's an option. Most folks would use the Nano at higher bitrates to take advantage of what it can do.
Click to expand...

So is any camera eligible for nano? Like could I use this on a panny hpx? or a DSLR for example?

any camera with HDMI / HD SDI ports?

P.S.

We have all your books at my school. haha just realized that.
 
You can use it with any camera that has HD-SDI output (or, for that matter, SD-SDI output, because the Nano can record standard-def too.)

You can use it with any camera that has HDMI output, however, it can only record what the camera displays on its HDMI output. That makes it pretty much useless for any DSLR, because no DSLR outputs a clean, quality, full-res signal worth recording.
 
I worked on a TV show a while ago, shooting all on the F35, and it was always a bit of an ordeal to go into steadicam mode for that camera. We'd pull off the tape deck and whatever else we could to get the camera lighter and we'd put it all on this ghostbusters-esque backpack. Someone would have to put on this 40 pound thing and follow the operator around with it. It's heavy, the operator has to be tethered...just wasn't a very good solution.

After a while they finally got a chance to test the nano flash and it was pretty comical seeing them replace this huge backpack full of junk with this little CF card writer that they slapped onto the back of the camera. Thats just another good use for it...
 
Hi Barry

Just a silly question...if one used the Nano with a HMC 151E would it be possible to get a significally better quality than the one the camera it self could produce? I guess the answer is yes, but how much better and in what way? Sharper, more colour, less grain/noise? The Nano costs 2300£ almost the same as the HMC 151E it self... would it be possible to produce fx. broadcast quality - for like BBC - with a Nano mounted on a HMC 151E? In other words - would using a Nano with the HMC 151E make it more easy to get productions accepted by tv stations (given that the technical quality and thecontent of the production is acceptable of course). I ask because I am sometimes in doubt if the HMC 151E is at all good enough for HD broadcasting from a techical point of view?

:)
Morten
 
The HPX170 is basically the same camera as the HMC150, and is used by NBC News as their main handheld camera... the HMC150 is pretty good. I don't know if the BBC would accept it or not, that's up to the BBC to determine; I do believe Alan Roberts did an evaluation on the HMC150 at some point.

The Nano is an external recorder which is capable of recording in better or worse quality than the HMC150 is. If you put the Nano in 18 megabits mode, it'd definitely be inferior to the in-camera codec on the HMC150. But if you put it up to at least 50 megabits, then it should start being at least as good as, and probably better than, what the camera's onboard codec can do. You'll get higher color sampling (4:2:2 instead of the onboard 4:2:0) and the higher you set the bitrate, the more resistant the codec will be to any potential degradation due to overloading the codec. Frankly I haven't found many cases where the HMC150's codec is inadequate, but at 100mbps long-GoP 4:2:2, the Nano's codec should be superior to it. As to whether that combination would make it eligible for broadcast by the BBC, well, that's their call to make, I don't know if they've made any ruling on that. However, the BBC has ruled that other cameras that don't meet its specifications (like the Sony EX1) can be made acceptable by using the Nano at 50mbps or above. There's been some postings by some folks that the AF100 with the Nano @ 50mbps has been accepted by the BBC. I haven't seen any confirmation of that yet.
 
Hi Barry

Thx a lot! A really helpfull and Quick answer!
suddenly my old hmc151 looks a bit more professional to me ;)
I'll keep your comments about the nano in mind - could be interesting to see som test shots that compared a avchd and a nano clip both in highest quality possible taken simultanoualy with hmc 151 camera to see the difference.

;)
Morten

;)
Morten
 
I think the Nano is a great product, but I don't know that it makes sense for an HMC150. The recorder costs more than the camera does, and I don't know that the HMC150's really taxing its codec as is. You could get some improvement, certainly, but I don't know that it makes sense for the amount of improvement versus the expense. For a higher-end camera the Nano becomes a no-brainer -- for the AF100 or EX1, both are accepted by the BBC when paired with a Nanoflash. But for the HMC150, I think it might not make as much sense on a dollars-to-performance ratio. But, if you're wanting to extract the very highest performance that the HMC150 could possibly deliver, the Nano would be the way to go.
 
Remaining voltage counts down. I am away from home and don't have it with me but that's what I remember. Minimum voltage is around 6 Volts I recall. The small battery from nanoflash.net lasts 3 hours and counts down from just above 8 volts until empty. Not sure that there are bars as such. Someone else can correct me if I am wrong as it is not in front of me
 
Wow... I have to look at the voltage meter... what a strange way to see if you have enough power vs. just looking at meter or a blinking light notifying low battery. Thanks. Hope Convergent can fix this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top